Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.

In the United States and many Western nations, the possession of images that appear to depict children in a sexual way, including naked or engaged in a sexual act, is illegal, even if the creation of the images did not involve a child. This includes drawings and computer-generated images. If no child is being abused (as is inherently the case with actual pornographic photographs of children), should the distribution or possession of the images carry hefty jail sentences?

Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.

Yes because... No because...

Non-photographic child pornography reduces the demand for actual child pornography

If people so inclined are able to find fictional, non-photographic images of child abuse to slake their thirst, demand for actual images of child abuse will decrease, which will result in fewer children being abused for the production of child pornography. This follows from the laws of supply and demand.

This might even be applied to child abuse. [[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/30/child-pornography-reduces-child-abuse/]] If we can slake the demand for sexualized children without abusing children, doesn't that serve everyone?

The cost of non-Photographic pornography will only be lower than the real thing, if demand for the real thing permits this, in which case by the same laws that create demand for cheaper substitutes, demand for the real thing might escalate.
It's a quality issue, a fake is a fake it' not the same thing and as such cannot engulf demand away from the real product. It can only evoke interest in the real product.

Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.

Yes because... No because...

These images in the United States are protected by the First Amendment

The First Amendment protects expression in all its forms, and can only be overruled in cases in which another person's rights are being expressly violated. Because the production of child pornography violates the rights of the child, it is rightly illegal. But illustrations of children cast in a sexual light do not involve anyone of being deprived of their rights, and therefore deserve First Amendment protections.

It feeds the urge, why would you want to look at pictures of children being used except to justify and normalize the want to indulge in such activity. Sex with a child is wrong period, depicting child sex makes it's interesting, exciting and people who would otherwise keep from such activities are enticed to mimic pictures.

Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.

Yes because... No because...

UNREAL!

Why should ficticious children have any more protection than fictitious adults?

RESPONSE TO 'NO':
I understand your point, but I was referring to the protection of the fictitious children depicted in the author's example. The observer that you make reference to can be affected by many things including pornographic drawings. Real child pornography is already illegal because it involves real children as subjects.

The laws are not intended to protect fictitious children, but to protect either a) real children from the adults that view this material, or b) real adults who view this material from themselves.

Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.

Yes because... No because...

Make the sick subject illegal.

Yes make it illegal. I cannot believe the vote is 50 50, there is obviously some very sick folk about and I worry about society. Are not these folk capable of a mature natural relationship ?. What next ? the real thing ? yes because they are already perverse, incapable,weak,and sick with no scruples. Get a proper life.

ad hominem, slippery slope. This isn't an argument.

Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.

Yes because... No because...

Exploitation of real children is the primary reason child pornography is illegal in the first place.

Computer-generated images or anime cannot exploit real children (if those media did, it would mean violating the laws of physics and/or blurring the boundary between reality and fiction). Therefore computer-generated "child porn" cannot be considered as equal and synonymous with real, exploitative, abusive, illegal child pornography.

Also, any argument involving how such "fictitious media can eventually feed the demand for real children" and such involving "urges" will simply not work. Paedophiles are already attracted even to the most mundane depictions of children, does that mean all pictures of children should be banned? Should we destroy all cuteness in the universe just because even the most subatomic quantum-level amount of cuteness feeds paedophilic urges? Anything child-related can feed a paedophilic urge. It is like trying to argue how we should abolish the First Amendment because free speech led to bar fights and bad moods.

However if the "urges" do result into some conflict in one's well-being, therapy and moderation, rather than jail, would be more helpful and constructive measures. Drastic measures like court intervention should only be reserved in physical altercations and violations of the rights of other people who are actually capable of consciousness.

Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.

Yes because... No because...

Question is wrong.

Do we vote y or n for the question itself or the topic because my Yes for it to be made illegal could also be taken as a yes it should not be illegal. Rather confusing giving way to innacurate results.

Debates > Non-photographic forms of child pornography (e.g. illustrations or computer-generated images) should not be illegal.
Category: